New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Complex Lit Blog

Crime-Fraud Exception: To Get Opinion, But Not Fact, Work Product, Must Show Lawyer Knew of Misconduct — What Lawyer Remembers of Interview = Opinion WP, Even If No Notes — Questions Merely Lurking in Prior Case ≠ Precedent (Good Quote)

Grand Jury Subpoena v. United States, 870 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2017) (2-1 decision): PER CURIAM: This case arises from the district court's denial of a motion to quash grand jur ...
Grand Jury Subpoena v. United States, 870 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2017) (2-1 decision): PER CURIAM: This case arises from the district court's denial of a motion to quash grand jury subpoenas demanding testimony of a criminal defendant's attorney …
Continue Reading

Rule 11, § 1927, Inherent Power Sanctions: $9,164,404.12 Fine ($6,983.42 per Case [Rand Study] x 1,250 Phony Suits + Cost of Special Master), Reprimand & Referral to Disciplinary Committee — Mere Mistake Not Sanctionable (Good Quotes)

In re Engle Cases, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172678 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2017): OPINION AND ORDER Table of Contents
In re Engle Cases, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172678 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2017): OPINION AND ORDER Table of Contents Go to table1 WILLIAM G. YOUNG, TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, and ROY B. DALTON, JR., DISTRICT JUDGES…
Continue Reading

Expert Reliance on Third-Party Website to ID Drugs—Cal. Equivalent to Fed. R. Evid. 803(17)—A Website Database Can Be a Reliable “Compilation”—Need It Be Log-In Only? Must Its Source of Info Be Shown to Be Accurate?

People v. Mooring, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 856  (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017): In 2011, law enforcement officers searched the home of Lanita Denise Davis and Darrell James Mooring, (Mooring, Sr.) and found over 4,000 prescription pills, many of which were in prescription pill bottles. Davis and Mooring Sr.'s names were on some pill ...
People v. Mooring, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 856  (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017): In 2011, law enforcement officers searched the home of Lanita Denise Davis and Darrell James Mooring, (Mooring, Sr.) and found over 4,000 prescription pills, many of…
Continue Reading

Fraud on the Court: Suit to Vacate Judgment Not Limited to Rule 60(b)’s 1 Year—Factors—Clear & Convincing Evid—Lawyer’s Higher Duty of Candor in Ex Parte Cases—Confidentiality Order No Excuse for Deception—Good Quotes on Lawyers’ Duties

In re Bressman (Baxter v. Bressman), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20340 (3d Cir. Oct. 18, 2017): In this appeal we are asked to decide whether Max Folkenflik, Esq., committed fraud on the court. The Bankruptcy Court determined that Folkenflik had intentionally deceived the court. As a result, the court vacated the default jud ...
In re Bressman (Baxter v. Bressman), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20340 (3d Cir. Oct. 18, 2017): In this appeal we are asked to decide whether Max Folkenflik, Esq., committed fraud on the court. The Bankruptcy Court determined that Folkenflik had…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: FRAP 38 and § 1927 Sanctions Available for Filing a “Slap-Dash Excuse for a Brief” on Appeal

Yang v. Sessions, 2017 WL 4022355 (5th Cir. Sept. 12, 2017): *1 Lianju Yang petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). He challenges the denial of relief from removal, including applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Lianju Yang’s brief, through counsel Do ...
Yang v. Sessions, 2017 WL 4022355 (5th Cir. Sept. 12, 2017): *1 Lianju Yang petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). He challenges the denial of relief from removal, including applications for asylum and…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — After Party Testifies to Having Consulted Counsel to Show Good Faith, Failure to Waive Privilege and Disclose Advice Can Give Rise to Permissible Inference of Absence of Good Faith

Sec'y United States DOL v. Am. Future Sys., Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19991 (3d Cir. Oct. 13, 2017): I. INTRODUCTION We are asked to decide whether the
Sec'y United States DOL v. Am. Future Sys., Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19991 (3d Cir. Oct. 13, 2017): I. INTRODUCTION We are asked to decide whether the Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to compensate employees for breaks…
Continue Reading

Electronic Signatures: A Name or Email Address in the “From” Field of an Email, Like a Signature Block, Satisfies the Requirement of a Signature under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) (and the Statute of Frauds)

Le Norman Operating LLC v. Chalker Energy, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 9297 (Tex. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2017): The appellees and cross-appellants, Chalker Energy Partners III, LLC; Raptor Petroleum, LLC; BMW Investments, L.P.; Ark-La-Tex Property Investments, LP; Remora Oil & Gas, LLC; Eastern Redbud, LLC; Jimmy Sutton; Vicenergy, LLC; Chris Faul ...
Le Norman Operating LLC v. Chalker Energy, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 9297 (Tex. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2017): The appellees and cross-appellants, Chalker Energy Partners III, LLC; Raptor Petroleum, LLC; BMW Investments, L.P.; Ark-La-Tex Property Investments, LP; Remora Oil &…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power & § 1927 Sanctions: Prelitigation Conduct May Be Considered on Issue of Bad Faith — Bad Faith of Predecessor Counsel, Client Not Imputed to Successor Counsel — Due Process: Notice Given in Summary Judgment Decision, Sanctions Motion

Redding v. Prosight Specialty Mgmt. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10303 (9th Cir. June 9, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1. A fine is generally civil if it is [*3]  meant "to compensate the complainant for losses su ...
Redding v. Prosight Specialty Mgmt. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10303 (9th Cir. June 9, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1. A fine is…
Continue Reading

Requests for Admission: On Motion to Withdraw Admissions, What = Prejudice to Opponent? Not Just Having to Take Discovery or Prove the Facts — Rule 36 Is Supposed to Be a Time Saver, Not a Weapon (Good Quote)

United States ex rel. Graybar Elec. Co. v. TEAM Construction, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154072 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 21, 2017): Defendants TEAM Construction, LLC ("TEAM") and Western Suret ...
United States ex rel. Graybar Elec. Co. v. TEAM Construction, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154072 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 21, 2017): Defendants TEAM Construction, LLC ("TEAM") and Western Surety Company's ("Western") moved for partial summary judgment [D.E. 48], and plaintiff …
Continue Reading

Text Authentication & Admissibility—Threshold Issue: Whose Phone? — Incoming Happy Birthday = State of Mind, Failure to Contradict = Adoptive Admission — Incoming Offer to Buy = Verbal Act

State v. Otero, 2017 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 807 (Kan. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2017): A confession is among the most powerful weapons in a prosecutor's arsenal, for a jury can use it to convict a ...
State v. Otero, 2017 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 807 (Kan. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2017): A confession is among the most powerful weapons in a prosecutor's arsenal, for a jury can use it to convict a defendant with his…
Continue Reading
Previous113114115116117118119Next

Recent Posts

Electronic Spoliation/Rule 37(e): (1) Finding of Recklessness But Neither Gross Negligence Nor Willfulness in Loss of Video Evidence Precludes Rule 37(e)(2)’s Severest Sanctions Because (i) No Intent to Deprive and (ii) Rule 37(e)(2) Displaces District Court’s Power to Invoke Inherent Power to Impose Those Sanctions — (2) Appellate Review = Abuse of Discretion, With The Caveat That Whether The District Court Applied The Correct Legal Standards Is Reviewed De Novo — (3) Inherent Power Is Often Available As An Alternate Source of Sanctioning Power But Can Be Limited by Rule or Statute, Something Which Courts Do Not Lightly Presume — (4) The Text of Rule 37(e)(2), As Confirmed by the Advisory Committee Note, Displaces Inherent Power to Impose the Sanctions Specified in the Rule or Any More Severe Sanctions — (5) “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) = “The Willful Destruction Of Evidence With The Purpose Of Avoiding Its Discovery By An Adverse Party” — (6) Appellate Standing Conferred by Virtue of Issuance of Sanctions Regardless of Merits Outcome — (7) Value of Advisory Committee Notes in Interpreting Rules Enacted without Change Despite General Reticence to Rely on Legislative History

RICO: (1) Plaintiff Need Not Suffer Injury from Each Predicate Act to Establish Standing, And The Pattern May Include Predicates As to Which No Plaintiff Has Standing — (2) 7 Elements of a Civil RICO Claim (2d Circuit Articulation) Which Must Be Established As to Each Defendant — (3) Requirements of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise — (4) Each Defendant Must Personally Commit 2 or More Predicate Acts — (5) Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Horizontal and Vertical Elements — (6) No Requirement That All Members of a RICO Enterprise Joined at Inception — Can Join Over Time/Others Can Quit — (7) Cannot Charge 2 Predicate Acts Where One Action Violates Two Statutes — (8) A Footnote to Consider for Briefs: “Unless Otherwise Noted, When Quoting Judicial Decisions This Order Accepts All Alterations And Omits All Citations, Footnotes, And Internal Quotation Marks.”

For An Appeal to Be Timely, A Motion for Reconsideration in The District Court (A Rule 59(e) Motion) Must Be Filed, And Not Just Served within 30 Days of The Decision, to Toll The 30-Day Period for Filing An Appeal

There Is No Good-Faith Defense For Issuing An Overly Burdensome Subpoena

Purposes of Rule 37 and Section 1927 Sanctions

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

Spoliation: Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) Imposes a Higher Standard — Intent — Than Fourth Circuit Law Previously Applied to Spoliation of Electronically-Stored Information (And Still Does As to Non-ESI) — Willfulness vs. Intent

Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions: Removal of counsel from case, referral for disciplinary action, and award of fees and costs for assaulting opposing counsel at deposition — Failure to request hearing waive any right to a hearing — Notice and opportunity to be heard required before sua sponte sanctions imposed, whether under Rule 11, the inherent power of the court or § 1927 — Notice may come from court or opposing counsel — Order imposing sanctions cannot provide notice of sanctions — Nature of bad faith requirement for inherent power sanctions: bad faith to obstruct the judicial process or bring about violation of a court order — Sanctions proceeding need not defer (Younger abstention) to disciplinary proceeding involving the same conduct — Sanctions proceeding doesn’t threaten to interfere with disciplinary proceeding — Why District Court is accorded significant deference in matters concerning attorney’s fees

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice